Transcript
Jeff Bridges (0:00)
Morning, Zoe. Got donuts.
Zoe (0:02)
Jeff Bridges, why are you still living above our garage?
Jeff Bridges (0:05)
Well, I dig the mattress and I want to be in a T mobile commercial like you teach me. So Dana.
Zoe (0:12)
Oh no, I'm not really prepared. I couldn't possibly at T Mobile get the new iPhone 17 Pro on them. It's designed to be the most powerful iPhone yet and has the ultimate pro camera system.
Jeff Bridges (0:23)
Wow, impressive. Let me try. T mobile is the best place to get iPhone 17 Pro because they've got the best network.
Brooke Gladstone (0:31)
Nice.
Zoe (0:31)
Je free.
Michael Kirk (0:32)
You heard them.
Jeff Bridges (0:33)
T mobile is the best place to.
Michael Kirk (0:34)
Get the new iPhone 17 Pro on us with eligible traded in any condition.
Jeff Bridges (0:40)
So what are we having for lunch?
Zoe (0:41)
Dude, my work here is done.
T-Mobile Announcer (0:43)
The 24 month bill credit on experience beyond for well qualified customers + tax and 35 device connection charge credit send and balance due. If you pay off earlier, Cancel Finance Agreement. IPhone 17 Pro 256 gigs 1099.99 A new line minimum 100 plus a month plan with auto pay plus taxes and fees required. Best mobile network in the US based on analysis by Oklahoma Speed Test Intelligence.
Mike Pesca (0:58)
Data 182025 Visit t mobile.com if you like the gist. I think you do. I think you'll also like Risky Business, a podcast hosted by Nate Silver and Maria Konnikova. You know them, they're journalists who moonlight as high stakes poker players. Though that might be misstating where their incomes primarily come from. Tickets to poker. They talk about odds, incentives and outcomes. And they talk about democracy. You know, in politics, every move is a calculation. And sometimes our leaders can make bad bets. And sometimes we as citizens suffer bad beats. Check out Risky Business, available in your favorite podcast app. It's Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025, from Peach Fish Productions. It's the gist. I'm Mike Pesca. Big redistricting news. Not great news for the Democrats. So right now, North Carolina, which you might know from such past presidential elections as the last one and the last one before that as being a pretty close state. Also the one before that, before that, pretty close. Republican. Democrat. There's a Democratic governor. Not saying that it's 50 50, but it's probably 5248 Republican to Democrat. So they have 14 congressional seats. What should the breakdown be? Republican to Democrat? Ideally seven to seven. All right, eight to six I think the Democrats would take. Well, right now, 10 of the state's 14 congressional seats are controlled by Republicans. And after this redistricting, it's likely going to be 11. At issue the first district, which is held by Democrat Don Davis. He is black. The district is centered on all eight of the state's majority black counties, but it has been redistricted. And the reason why that is allowed is because, well, right now it's not, but it probably will be by the time North Carolina's voting laws go into effect is because just this week there was a case in front of the Supreme Court, Louisiana versus, and the Voting Rights act was to be decided. So for 60 something years, the voting Rights act was in effect, and especially in states in the former Confederacy. Although this part of the Voting Rights act applied everywhere, special consideration was given not to disenfranchise black voters and also black representatives. But the conservative majority on the Supreme Court are giving that a new look. And they're saying that the conditions of 2025 are very different from the conditions of the 1960s when there was quite active voter suppression. Not just the allegation that you have to show a driver's license, which 89% of adults have, and therefore, maybe we should not require that voting laws be written with a sensitivity to black voters or really by taking race into account in any dimension. Okay, Even if you think that that's a fair enough argument, how it actually shows up is something that's pretty unfair, we'd all agree, which is gerrymandering, which are states where the congressional delegation is entirely unrepresentative of the electorate. Now, I think that's important that states look a little. The representatives in the U.S. government represent to some extent the, to a large extent the voters of the state. But the only way to do this up until this point has been with regard to race. Now, in Louisiana, a third of the state's black, and they have six congressional seats, and right now, two of them are held by Democrats and they're both black representatives. So that is basically in line with the vote with the voters after their redistricting could become just one seat held by a Democrat who is black. In North Carolina right now, there are four Democrats from the state and three of them are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Along with Davis, there's Alma Adams and Valerie Fuchsi. Now, you might hear that or you might think, in fact, without hearing it, it's just your brain telling you it's that out of 14 congressional districts in North Carolina, given that the state has 20 to 22% of its population being African American, that three out of 14, which is 21%, is a perfect percentage, perfectly representative. And you'd be right. However, you have to realize that if there were only two black representatives, it wouldn't be some massive mathematical violation of the overall representation of black people within the state. This is a problem of binomial distribution. But it actually turns out that if you're just randomly selecting, with 22% of the state being black, and assuming that if you get a congressional district that is majority black, they will vote for a black representative, that actually winds up happening less than three out of the 14 times. Quite often, almost a third or actually over a third of the time, you wouldn't even get three or more black representatives. Now, of course, two thirds of the time you would. But the right argument or the correct argument isn't something like, how often would this happen if congressional maps were drawn, ran randomly? Because congressional maps aren't drawn randomly. This is the point. In North Carolina and so many other states, they're drawn with the intent to favor the party that controls the state House. In one state, California, that can redraw its districts to favor more Democrats, that's what's being done. But in half a dozen other states, Louisiana, now North Carolina, we saw, of course, Texas, there's Missouri, it's being drawn to favor Republicans, and that is unfair.
